Bryan Trottier

I really don't see how anyone can possibly argue Bossy as a an equal or better playmaker than Lafleur, unless you really believe he was a much better overall player than Lafleur, which goes against the general perception of history.

We know Bossy was the better finisher. We know that he was a better backchecker (though not as good as his linemates). Yet Lafleur is usually ranked higher... because he is an all-time great playmaker. Am I missing something? It seems that a brutal manipulation of stats (comparing Bossy's prime with Lafleur's pre-prime years or using "per game" stats that including Lafleur's awful comeback years) is the only way you can say they are close when it comes to playmaking.

full disclosure - I have a Bossy bias as he was my favorite player.

I believe Bossy was a very underrated playmaker, however you define it. I think his core strength, his pure value proposition as a hockey player was as a goal scorer. He's said as much in his book, in his interviews during his career and since. He LOVED scoring goals and he worked really hard to do that - every game.

Bossy's battle level is underrated as well. I always felt he was a poor skater, not strong on his skates, not fast, not strong along the boards and although he was responsible in his own zone (Arbour demanded it) - he was hardly a defensive player.

Lafleur was far more talented/skilled than Bossy - no doubt about it. Speed, passing/vision, purely offensively he was elite and probably the best in the NHL (arguably) in his prime.

The stats, again, very misleading. I think Bossy was a better player than Lafleur - pure preference on my part. I don't expect others to agree and i certainly don't care to argue the point.

I don't like the seemingly 1to1 relationship between the number of assists to playmaking ability. There's definitely a strong correlation but not as strong as the numbers would suggest IMO.

For example: Brent Sutter averaged under 20 assists per season before 1984 - the he played with Bossy while Trottier was hurt in 85 and got 60 assists and 100 pts that year. Bernie Nicholls with his 70 goals and 80 assists the first season 99 came over. There are dozens of better examples than these extreme ones but my main point is that assists (assists/game per shift per minute) are indicators of playmaking ability, yes, but just not a fan of breaking down a player's offensive ability into sub-categories and assigning weight to their impact.

I mean, Craig Janney was a great playmaker but a horribly hockey player. Adam Oates was an incredible playmaker who had success almost everywhere he played - most notably with his chemistry playing with Brett Hull.

On the contrary, Gretzky looked awful in St. Louis playing with Brett Hull.

It's just a very unclear stats story to me. I know this thread is about Trottier but it's too late now, I've already written all this nonsense.

Giving Guy Lafleur credit for Steve Shutt's success is absolute nonsense. During the first round of the 1974 playoffs against the New York Rangers, Scotty Bowman put together a line which had Henri Richard at center, Steve Shutt at LW, Claude Larose at RW although Cournoyer would double shift at times. Guy Lafleur - third year in the league, was basically the 10th or 11th forward:

The results are available for all to see in the playoff section of the above. Shutt lead the Canadiens in scoring while old Henri Richard was 3rd. Guy Lafleur contributed 1 assist in 6 games, game 6 playing with Richard and Shutt. Boxscores available via the HSP.

Basically this was Steve Shutt's break thru moment. Also playing with Henri Richard he quickly learned about effort, defense and the proper way of playing hockey. Other than one assist Guy Lafleur contributed very little to the emergence of Steve Shutt.

The Habs also got removed in the first round by NYR in 6 games. A rather small sample to go by even if Shutt did play well. But it's funny how you stop right at 1974. With Lafleur, Shutt had a 60, 49, 47 and 45 goal season. Plus he peaked at 105 points in 1977. We don't have any evidence of how Shutt would have fared in his prime without Lafleur but there is clear evidence that once Lafleur's gave started to slip away after 1980 that Shutt's production did likewise. He was 28 years old, not old. Shutt was a fine player in his own right and I have never had a problem with him being in the HHOF but he did hit the jackpot.

Quote:

So the two main influences in Steve Shutt's NHL career were two centers - Henri Richard and Jacques Lemaire supported by the BIG 3 on defense who appreciated how his little game facilitated the transition and puck movement. Replace Guy Lafleur with a healthy Yvan Cournoyer and Steve Shutt also makes the HHOF.

So an aging Cournoyer who is in his 30s by now would have made as big of an impact on Shutt as Lafleur? This is not possible. Cournoyer again is a guy I promote as a legit HHOFer but even in his prime he was never Lafleur. Maybe 1972 is his best year, but even then he's miles behind Lafleur in his prime, he just is. But you think an even older Cournoyer makes a bigger impact on Shutt if he replaces Lafleur in the latter part of the 1970s? Come on. Healthy or not Cournoyer was never Guy Lafleur.

1981-82 Guy Lafleur 27G/57A playing only 66 games. Montreal Canadiens scored 360 goals. Effectively the other players scored 333 goals. Not adjusting for the missing games Lafleur assisted on 57 of them or 17.1%.

Spin it whatever way you want, adjust to your heart's content but you will not avoid the fact that Guy Lafleur's playmaking skills were diminishing. His playmaking dropped significantly even though the players on his team were scoring more and did not miss him when he was not playing.

Lafleur declined after 1980??

Wow, you don't say!!!

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe

I really don't see how anyone can possibly argue Bossy as a an equal or better playmaker than Lafleur, unless you really believe he was a much better overall player than Lafleur, which goes against the general perception of history.

We know Bossy was the better finisher. We know that he was a better backchecker (though not as good as his linemates). Yet Lafleur is usually ranked higher... because he is an all-time great playmaker. Am I missing something? It seems that a brutal manipulation of stats (comparing Bossy's prime with Lafleur's pre-prime years or using "per game" stats that including Lafleur's awful comeback years) is the only way you can say they are close when it comes to playmaking.

Bossy was actually a better playmaker than Guy Lafleur. First five seasons Mike Bossy had 270 assists while Guy Lafleur had 233. On a per game basis / career Mike Bossy at .74 > .70 Guy Lafleur. The rebound assists would tend to wash since they were both great shooters.So your assertion that Lafleur was a "much more supreme playmaker" is not supported by data at any level.

The other posters kind of called you on that so I won't bother with how you seemingly ignored Lafleur's WHOLE career. I will add this though, from a purely statistical point of view this is how the assists break down. Lafleur at his best:

Lafleur - 1, 2, 2, 3, 3

Bossy was nowhere near that and before someone comes in saying "well NO ONE would lead the NHL in assists with Gretzky in there". I've got that covered. Bossy would have never been more than 3rd in assists without Gretzky. But what my eyes tell me is that Lafleur was also the better playmaker. People took offense to me saying "much more supreme playmaker" but I'll say that it is definitely noticeable on my end and this is a compliment considering Bossy was very good himself. But I've seen it on here, when we've compared the best playmakers in NHL history Lafleur's name has been mentioned, Bossy's hasn't.

Quote:

Regardless of the spin and selecting favourable comparables Bryan Trottier was a much better hockey player than Guy Lafleur, while Mike Bossy was somewhat better. Guy Lafleur had more artistic flair and better press.

Count me in as a guy who looks beyond the "blonde mane of hair while he's flying down the right wing" and judge Lafleur simply for how he played the game and dominated the game. He was more poetic than Bossy sure, but if I were starting a team from scratch I'd pick Lafleur. Because of Trottier's all around prescence it would give me a lot more to analyze if I were comparing him to Lafleur though

When Bossy and Lafleur shared each other's prime (3 years from 1977-'80) it is important to note that Lafleur outscored him considerably in those three years and was named 1st team all-star at RW all three times. Bossy was a 2nd teamer 2 times in that span. My eyes also tell me that with all due respect to Bossy (geez I hate going against the Isles greats out of respect) if we are to match up Lafleur's best 6 years vs. Bossy's that Guy comes out on top without much argument.

The Habs also got removed in the first round by NYR in 6 games. A rather small sample to go by even if Shutt did play well. But it's funny how you stop right at 1974. With Lafleur, Shutt had a 60, 49, 47 and 45 goal season. Plus he peaked at 105 points in 1977. We don't have any evidence of how Shutt would have fared in his prime without Lafleur but there is clear evidence that once Lafleur's gave started to slip away after 1980 that Shutt's production did likewise. He was 28 years old, not old. Shutt was a fine player in his own right and I have never had a problem with him being in the HHOF but he did hit the jackpot.

So an aging Cournoyer who is in his 30s by now would have made as big of an impact on Shutt as Lafleur? This is not possible. Cournoyer again is a guy I promote as a legit HHOFer but even in his prime he was never Lafleur. Maybe 1972 is his best year, but even then he's miles behind Lafleur in his prime, he just is. But you think an even older Cournoyer makes a bigger impact on Shutt if he replaces Lafleur in the latter part of the 1970s? Come on. Healthy or not Cournoyer was never Guy Lafleur.

Usual. In 1987 Mario Lemieux learned a work ethic from Wayne Gretzky during a small sample space - The Canada Cup but Henri Richard did not influence Steve Shutt. Let's see, Shutt and Henri Richard practiced, travelled as teammates much longer than Gretzky and Lemieux did. A few games together during the 1974 playoffs put it all together for Shutt just like a handful of games with Wayne Gretzky put it all together for Mario Lemieux.

No one is claiming that Yvan Cournoyer was Guy Lafleur. You also omit the Jacques Lemaire factor. Jacques Lemaire and Yvan Cournoyer came-up thru the Montreal system two years apart. Lachine Maroons in the MMJHL, Junior Canadiens in the OHA,the Canadiens direct for Cournoyer, Lemaire a one year stint in the CPHL with Houston. After Beliveau retired Cournoyer and Lemaire were linemates more often than not until Bowman moved Lemaire onto a line with Shutt and Lafleur. Shutt / Lemaire/ Cournoyer would have been just as effective with a LW scoring focus. Cournoyer assuming a Bucyk type role. The key to Steve Shutt's game was playing with a center who could compliment his game. Lemaire and Richard were the ideal centers. Cournoyer should in the 1974 playoff that he could play with Shutt. As long as the right winger did not drag down the line it would shine.

Last edited by Canadiens1958: 08-27-2010 at 05:17 PM.
Reason: addition

When Bossy and Lafleur shared each other's prime (3 years from 1977-'80) it is important to note that Lafleur outscored him considerably in those three years and was named 1st team all-star at RW all three times. Bossy was a 2nd teamer 2 times in that span. My eyes also tell me that with all due respect to Bossy (geez I hate going against the Isles greats out of respect) if we are to match up Lafleur's best 6 years vs. Bossy's that Guy comes out on top without much argument.

Bossy was an all-star at the same stage of his career that Lafleur was trying to break into the top two lines or beyond 10th / 11the forward status in the playoffs.

If we go eight or ten years.

Lafleur: 6 - 1st AST member.
Bossy: 5 - 1st AST and 3 2nd AST member.

Edge to Bossy.

Bossy may not have had the same flash but he was more effective than Lafleur especially come playoff time.During the four consecutive Stanley Cup Championship runs of each team Bossy marginally out performs Lafleur on a PPG basis 1.54 > 1.50.Overall inc the 4 SC runs for each Mike Bossy has a 1.24 to 1.05 PPG edge. Assists a virtual wash scoring edge to Bossy.

Bossy was an all-star at the same stage of his career that Lafleur was trying to break into the top two lines or beyond 10th / 11the forward status in the playoffs.

If we go eight or ten years.

Lafleur: 6 - 1st AST member.
Bossy: 5 - 1st AST and 3 2nd AST member.

Edge to Bossy.

Bossy may not have had the same flash but he was more effective than Lafleur especially come playoff time.During the four consecutive Stanley Cup Championship runs of each team Bossy marginally out performs Lafleur on a PPG basis 1.54 > 1.50.Overall inc the 4 SC runs for each Mike Bossy has a 1.24 to 1.05 PPG edge. Assists a virtual wash scoring edge to Bossy.

When Bossy and Lafleur shared each other's prime (3 years from 1977-'80) it is important to note that Lafleur outscored him considerably in those three years and was named 1st team all-star at RW all three times. Bossy was a 2nd teamer 2 times in that span. My eyes also tell me that with all due respect to Bossy (geez I hate going against the Isles greats out of respect) if we are to match up Lafleur's best 6 years vs. Bossy's that Guy comes out on top without much argument.

problem is, how do you choose to weigh the stats in those years?

bossy had five seasons where he had as many or more goals than Lafleur ever had.
bossy's role was as a goal scorer. That's what he was tasked with and what he was best at. At that level, he was better than Lafleur - just far less flashy.

Lafleur was much more dangerous offensively as far as my eyes saw. But if you choose stats alone, hard to argue. Even at 83 assists and 147 pts in 81-82, both more than Lafleur ever had.

When you start with league average scoring and ranking, it clouds the comparison because Bossy suffers from not JUST 99, but the impact 99 had on the entire game. The whole "league scoring is up" misses the point IMO. The players are the REASON WHY scoring is up. Gretzky DEFINED that era, he CREATED that era and everyone's scoring was up accordingly.

Again, wrong thread for this and definitely a close call either way. Two phenomenal hockey players - without a doubt.

Even as a Bossy fan it's hard to argue how great Lafleur was even though Bossy's goal scoring achievements, both statistically and in key defining moments, are impressive as hell.

Bossy was an all-star at the same stage of his career that Lafleur was trying to break into the top two lines or beyond 10th / 11the forward status in the playoffs.

If we go eight or ten years.

Lafleur: 6 - 1st AST member.
Bossy: 5 - 1st AST and 3 2nd AST member.

Edge to Bossy.

Bossy may not have had the same flash but he was more effective than Lafleur especially come playoff time.During the four consecutive Stanley Cup Championship runs of each team Bossy marginally out performs Lafleur on a PPG basis 1.54 > 1.50.Overall inc the 4 SC runs for each Mike Bossy has a 1.24 to 1.05 PPG edge. Assists a virtual wash scoring edge to Bossy.

You keep bringing up Bossy being better earlier in his career, but I still fail to see how it matters in the grand scheme of things. It's impressive, yes, but it doesn't affect who they both were as players. There's lots of players who were great as young players who aren't even in the same league as guys who took longer to take off. Is a guy like Barry Pederson better than a guy like Adam Oates? Is Jimmy Carson better than Joe Thornton? And while Bossy still came into a team that was solid, and had made the semi-finals the year before, he only had to beat out Billy Harris and Bob Nystrom for first line icetime. Good players, sure. But Lafleur had to crack a lineup that won the Stanley Cup the year before and had Yvon Cournoyer entrenched as it's top RW. And he still put up very respectable numbers considering his ice time.

While Bossy was obviously an elite player longer, as evidenced by his All-Star nods, I personally don't think an extra 2-3 years makes too much of a difference when you're looking at players with short longevity (Lafleur actually played for awhile, but he wasn't too much of an impact player in many of those seasons). I think with both of them, it makes more sense to just look at what they did over an extended stretch in their prime.

In this case, you mention the 4 cup runs, and they actually match up surprisingly well. While Bossy did play in a higher scoring era, if we want to include team effects and the shorter playoffs for Lafleur and just take into account raw values, they're basically even. Realistically, a 0.04 PPG edge is negligible (and if we include both of their next best playoff seasons, Lafleur wins) Both won a Conn Smythe during the runs, and came up with clutch goals. I think career playoff points is basically meaningless, as you're punishing Lafleur for playing longer when he was on the decline, as well as winning a cup while being a young player who wasn't a major factor (which as I stated above shouldn't really matter in the grand scheme of things). In all I think their playoffs are a wash.

meh, why fulfill the prophecy. This thread has escalated to a hilarity of epic proportions now. It was supposed to be about Bryan Trottier!

I know we butt heads a lot about this but I truly am only arguing it in the cases of really good or bad teams being adjusted by a league average in comparisons. It really does leave out too many factors to be liberally applied without any thought.

Do you seriously not notice or care how crazy the SRS rating of the 76-77 Habs is in relation to the rest of the league?

It is a very simple comparison of a team to its competition and obviously leaves out factors too.. but they are off the charts in comparison to their competition for a few years there.

In cases like that the league wide average just doesn't apply very well at all.

For me it has always been Potvin #1, Trottier #2, and Bossy#3 (though all very close) on the Islander Dynasty, which had so much depth.

But I never admired Trottier more than the role he played for Penguins. Even with a diminished skill set, he was such a smart and tenacious competitor and leader. Without him I'm not sure they win those Cups.

Lafleur:

Obviously Lafleur was the not the type of character that could have played the same role (as Trottier did for Pittsburgh), but at the same time Lafleur's defensive skill set in his prime (grit notwithstanding, he held his own) was certainly elite in both the offensive and defensive zones, and second to none in the neutral zone.

Career wise Lafleur/Trottier: Given the choice, I'd bet neither player would trade places with the other. (just a thought )

For me it has always been Potvin #1, Trottier #2, and Bossy#3 (though all very close) on the Islander Dynasty, which had so much depth.

But I never admired Trottier more than the role he played for Penguins. Even with a diminished skill set, he was such a smart and tenacious competitor and leader. Without him I'm not sure they win those Cups.

Lafleur:

Obviously Lafleur was the not the type of character that could have played the same role (as Trottier did for Pittsburgh), but at the same time Lafleur's defensive skill set in his prime (grit notwithstanding, he held his own) was certainly elite in both the offensive and defensive zones, and second to none in the neutral zone.

Career wise Lafleur/Trottier: Given the choice, I'd bet neither player would trade places with the other. (just a thought )

Usual. In 1987 Mario Lemieux learned a work ethic from Wayne Gretzky during a small sample space - The Canada Cup but Henri Richard did not influence Steve Shutt. Let's see, Shutt and Henri Richard practiced, travelled as teammates much longer than Gretzky and Lemieux did. A few games together during the 1974 playoffs put it all together for Shutt just like a handful of games with Wayne Gretzky put it all together for Mario Lemieux.

Well of course Richard influenced Shutt, among other young Habs. But he was retired come 1975. Shutt's first nice season statistically was 1976 and we all know who he was paired with. Lemaire was there too of course but while all three are HHOFers (Shutt, Lemaire, Lafleur) it is pretty obvious to me who carried the load offensively there. Shutt does not hit the numbers without Lafleur and a healthy Cournoyer wouldn't have made him a 60 goal man.

Lafleur was much more dangerous offensively as far as my eyes saw. But if you choose stats alone, hard to argue. Even at 83 assists and 147 pts in 81-82, both more than Lafleur ever had.

This is what my eyes tell me as well. Bossy was dangerous yes, but Lafleur could beat you in so many ways, more than Bossy IMO. And as good as Bossy was to the Isles dynasty with all those big goals, I certainly rate Lafleur as being more central to the Habs success.

Quote:

Again, wrong thread for this and definitely a close call either way. Two phenomenal hockey players - without a doubt.

I know we butt heads a lot about this but I truly am only arguing it in the cases of really good or bad teams being adjusted by a league average in comparisons. It really does leave out too many factors to be liberally applied without any thought.

Do you seriously not notice or care how crazy the SRS rating of the 76-77 Habs is in relation to the rest of the league?

It is a very simple comparison of a team to its competition and obviously leaves out factors too.. but they are off the charts in comparison to their competition for a few years there.

In cases like that the league wide average just doesn't apply very well at all.

It doesn't matter! There is no proof that you score more just by being on a stronger team. These aren't complementary players we're talking about here - they were their team's prime offensive weapons. Your logic says we should adjust their points differently because their 2nd and 3rd lines scored more goals. This type of argument is still a non-starter.

It doesn't matter! There is no proof that you score more just by being on a stronger team. These aren't complementary players we're talking about here - they were their team's prime offensive weapons. Your logic says we should adjust their points differently because their 2nd and 3rd lines scored more goals. This type of argument is still a non-starter.

So being way above average in a league doesn't mean anything but the whole league average for some reason does.. and you think my logic is off?

So being way above average in a league doesn't mean anything but the whole league average for some reason does.. and you think my logic is off?

You guys really need someone who actually knows statistics.

Statistics are only meaningful if you start with the right assumptions. Anyone who truly understands statistics can tell you that.

In the 1980s, every team in the league was offense-first, which is why EVERYONE had an easier time scoring.

So the Canadiens were much better than other teams and it was harder to score on them. But how many games did other teams actually play against the Canadiens? 6-8 games out of an 80 game schedule? That is so much less significant than that a league where it was easier to score against every team.

Statistics are only meaningful if you start with the right assumptions. Anyone who truly understands statistics can tell you that.

In the 1980s, every team in the league was offense-first, which is why EVERYONE had an easier time scoring.

So the Canadiens were much better than other teams and it was harder to score on them. But how many games did other teams actually play against the Canadiens? 6-8 games out of an 80 game schedule? That is so much less significant than that a league where it was easier to score against every team.

Anyone who truly understands statistics also knows that averages don't apply very well to outliers. Even using its simple method you can immediately see how far out in front the Canadiens were.. even in comparison to some other dynasty teams.

It was easier for the Canadiens to score by a large margin over the average team of the league that year too. They weren't only better at defence, they were better at everything by a large margin.

You guys need to look at even the simple rating system that hockey-reference uses.

I can fully accept the validity of applying adjusted stats to players and teams that are close to the averages of the years that are being compared. They are reasonably accurate for that but the farther a team/player in any given year is away is from the average of that year, the worse and worse adjusted stats can explain what they did. It implicity assumes that the level of competition in the league during each year and every year is exactly the same.

And that simply is very far from the truth in some cases.

Last edited by BraveCanadian: 08-28-2010 at 07:16 AM.
Reason: cause i don't make sense sometimes

Statistics are only meaningful if you start with the right assumptions. Anyone who truly understands statistics can tell you that.

In the 1980s, every team in the league was offense-first, which is why EVERYONE had an easier time scoring.

So the Canadiens were much better than other teams and it was harder to score on them. But how many games did other teams actually play against the Canadiens? 6-8 games out of an 80 game schedule? That is so much less significant than that a league where it was easier to score against every team.

Right assumptions. Would one of these right assumptions be that you or someone can actually provide an actual list of what defines "Right assumptions". An actual scientific method that may be replicated as opposed to a method that may be best described as an "art form". Have yet to see anything that is beyond levels of "art form". Some interesting experimental work but stiil in the early trying to separate from "art form" stage.

Offense-first. Every team in the eighties? One counter example would suffice to contradict your point. Canadiens, Keenan Flyers. Next.

Easier to score. The operative assumption being that more somehow equates to easier. More goals being score in a shoot-out scenario does not by default translate into easier.Likewise "EVERYONE" implies that the fringers found it easier to score.

Anyone who truly understands statistics also knows that averages don't apply very well to outliers. Even using its simple method you can immediately see how far out in front the Canadiens were.. even in comparison to some other dynasty teams.

It was easier for the Canadiens to score by a large margin over the average team of the league that year too. They weren't only better at defence, they were better at everything by a large margin.

You guys need to look at even the simple rating system that hockey-reference uses.

I can fully accept the validity of applying adjusted stats to players and teams that are close to the averages of the years that are being compared. They are reasonably accurate for that but the farther a team/player in any given year is away is from the average of that year, the worse and worse adjusted stats can explain what they did. It implicity assumes that the level of competition in the league during each year and every year is exactly the same.

And that simply is very far from the truth in some cases.

Averages reflect a collective situation but they do not reflect reality. Collectively a typical family may be represented as having 2.3 children in a specific demographic. But the fractional child never actually exists. Proceeding as if the fractional child actually exists quickly derails the process.

Averages reflect a collective situation but they do not reflect reality. Collectively a typical family may be represented as having 2.3 children in a specific demographic. But the fractional child never actually exists. Proceeding as if the fractional child actually exists quickly derails the process.

This is a very valid argument when dealing with a certain type of statistical fallacy. However, this is not that the fallacy.

In the 1980s, every team in the league was offense-first, which is why EVERYONE had an easier time scoring.

Nothing personal, but this is a case of where stereotypes can run into problems. Case in point:

No Al Arbour team was EVER "offense-first". The team that won the Stanley Cups, 1980-83 was built on a foundation of strong defense. Arbour saw to it his first year with the franchise, when he reduced the team's GA by 100. (Yes, 100.)

It is precisely because his teams were defensively disciplined, first and foremost, that they shut down the offensive Oilers machine in the '83 Finals. (And, likewise, once the Oilers embraced a modicum of defensive awareness, along with more discipline, patience, and the willingness to pay the price* they were ready to dethrone NYI the following season).